Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Don't forget that there are Pulitzer Prizes available in many categories. Should they win an award for reporting breaking news? Of course not. But they could be deserving of a prize in the Commentary, Criticism, or Editorial writing categories. And of course, there's always the fiction category.

Don't forget that there are Pulitzer Prizes available in many categories. Should they win an award for reporting breaking news? Of course not. But they could be deserving of a prize in the Commentary, Criticism, or Editorial writing categories. And of course, there's always the fiction category.

Kelly consistently puts out the highest-quality political cartoons out there. In a field comprised of over-the-top garbage, Kelly manages to make his points while mocking the format that he himself is using. He deserves the Political Cartooning Pulitzer without having to redefine it, or invent a new category.

That's a bit of an overstatement at best there, or maybe comparing apples to oranges. Real news sources make the claim that what they're saying is accurate. The Onion explicitly states that what they're saying is not true. You may remember some particularly insightful parodies they ran, but would forget the ones that weren't as spot-on. With news on the other hand, you're more likely to remember when the news wasn't accurate.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. The onion is very funny, and does make ma

they have no credibility as a news source since they never say "This is the news, this is actually happening." They have never made any -false- statements about the current events, but they haven't made any true statements about current events either. If they have any credibility as a news source for that,

They have credibility because they at least admit they're making stuff up. It's like art, they reveal a larger truth by showing falsehoods. That's why they have credibility. Other news organisations just make stuff up and pretend it's some how newsworthy.

If they get it then Dilbert, XKCD, FunnyOrDie, Failblog.. should receive one also. Some great journalism there../s

I don't think those are quite the same thing as The Onion. They are mostly just humor for humor's sake, or satirizing specific subcultures (office life, geeks, internet). The Onion has a lot of political satire, which is more relevant on the stage of national journalism. It that material on which they would be judged, not the comics about dismembered zombies and middle-school-cyber-bully-style movie reviews.

Nevermind that scientists ripped it for being terrible science. But if it pushes the agenda you want to hear, so be it.

I hear scientists also ripped apart evolution and the link between smoking and cancer too. My own research has been subjected to withering criticism from time to time as well, you might call that "ripping it apart."

You -could- conclude that diverse interpretations exist on all data, the truth is often hard to identify, most scientific issues are complicated with plenty of room for disagreement. Maybe one should conclude that scientists say a lot of things, but that doesn't make it true. Sometimes one

My best friend is a Liberal Democrat and exceedingly pro-environment. He is also the only guy I know that I would call an actual genius without reservation. He is finishing his doctorate in atmosphere science. So when he rips the terrible science the movie, I trust him. And he isn't the only one.

Take two seconds and Google up "Inconvenient Truth rebuttal" or "Inconvenient Truth lies" and note how many scientists and universities are ripping that movie.

Just to reiterate, Al Gore is not the theory of climate change. His faults and shortcomings are completely separate from climate change, and proving him wrong, a hypocrite, or misleading does not reflect on the science behind climate change. Lets just keep that straight that the two are completely separate.

The article you cited seems to take the movie as a scientific publication rather than a movie designed to raise awareness among the public. That was the goal, not to prove that global warming was ha

I'm undecided on how much we impact climate change. We know there are cycles of climate change. And we know we are polluting like mad. Do I feel confident that we understand the full extent of human impact on the climate? Certainly not, especially given how complicated atmospheric science is, and how little we know.

For instance, it has been proposed that global temperature changes in recent recorded history more cleanly correlate to solar activity than

As for political correctness, Gore and Clinton promised while campaigning for the White House, they'd make the environment a big issue. They promised Clean Water and Clean Air acts. Eight years in the White House, it never happened.

Bush took office, and within 100 days passed Clean Air and Clean Water acts. He passed penalties on auto manufacturers that didn't have hybrids. He passed a tax break for hybrid owners. He passed a new solar energy tax credit. And he passed a law demanding that utilities credit a

I agree with you. My point isn't that one party is correct, but rather that I think both parties are for the most part saying the same things. And that the environment isn't as much of a partisan issue that it is made out to be.

Claiming that Gore was exceedingly brave in tackling a politically incorrect issue is absurd. Anytime you claim to champion the environment, it is a politically positive message.

Politically incorrect is questioning anyone who claims to champion the environment.

I wouldn't, myself, call Gore exceedingly brave for it but you're definitely wrong that there weren't any negative political consequences for it. In the 90s I can remember hearing people (in person rather than via the internet, that having been the style at the time, along with tying an onion to your belt) call Gore a treehugger in a derogatory way and say that they'd never vote for him because he'd probably side with trees over Americans.

That's extremely unfair. He got it for not being the warmongering fuck that George Bush was. Or simply not being George Bush, if you prefer.

How is that working out for ya? How many fewer wars is Obama waging than George Bush did? Oh that's right, he has continued both of Bush's wars and started another one. And unlike Bush, he did not bother to get Congress to approve his new war.

He's started no wars, he's started a "kinetic military action". Similarly, George W Bush and Dick Cheney didn't lock up prisoners and tortured them, they "detained" "enemy combatants" and subjected them to "enhanced interrogation techniques".

When a politician (or businessperson, or anyone else who has a job that involves communicating with the public) takes a concept that has a perfectly good, short, clear word to describe it, and gives it a long convoluted phrase to mean the same thing, assume they're tryi

I too am glad that GP is insightful enough to see through The Onion's bland and predictable humor. Were it not for him, I too would be trapped among the uninformed masses. Truly, satire is the lowest form of humor!

lol, The Onion? If you are going to give a Pulitzer to any satirical news show, it should be the The Daily Show, which has done far more to advance News on an informative level and humor level than the Onion has. The Onion is just a parody site, that has parroted back warped versions of current events. Granted, a Pulitzer is probably just for print journalism (I am guessing), but if you are going to start lobbying to create new categories, create one to recognize a show that has substance and lulz.

To be fair, the Daily Show and the Onion are different in that the Daily Show mostly presents actual news in a funny manner, whereas the Onion is full blown satire. The Daily Show does do satire sometimes but it isn't its core schtick. In any case, the Pulitzer is only for print journalism. There already is an award for television, the Emmy, and the Daily Show has won it for eight consecutive years.

There's a element of truth to them all. "Black Man Given Worst Job in America," for example. True, from a certain perspective, and poignant commentary on race relations. From today's issue, "NASA Finds Evidence Of Humans On Moon," is 100% true and funny for several reasons. Another one, "Pakistani Intelligence Announces Its Full Cooperation With U.S. Forces During Upcoming Top Secret June 12 Drone Strike On Al-Qaeda At 5:23 A.M. Near Small Town Of Razmani In North Waziristan," is so close to true, it mi

No. The original actually makes sense. Because the movement is so large, even folks like Tom Hanks and A Huffington, who presumably would not bother with trivial movements, have gotten involved. Yours says that the large size of the movement would mean one should not expect submissions from Hanks and Huffington.

Poor Dave Barry, finally gets a movie made from one of his stories, and it turns out his farce about a stolen atomic bomb finally makes it to theaters mere months after 9/11.
And it had Tim Allen in it.

According to the official guidelines, there are 14 categories of journalism Pulitzer [pulitzer.org]. Leaving aside the ones that cant be made to apply to the Onion's ouvre (a distinguished example of investigative reporting, for instance), there are only four potential categories in which it could compete:

Category 1 - a distinguished example of public service by a newspaper or news site,

Meh, that's just a distraction from the more interesting issues that are about. Such as why Goldman can get a billion dollar bailout after helping to sink the economy, or why we can't have decent healthcare in this country. For every sensationalistic news piece you see on tv, assume the real news is elsewhere.